You don’t really think Trump has ever considered these things beyond what seems like an advantageous response to questions from the “idiot religious voter”, do you?
That doesn't seem to be what the author was claiming. I agree with you that Jeebus is said to have called himself Son of Man--that's my recollection. However, the author claims that Jeebus only used that phrasing in the third person and then goes on to say they are different people.
There's no ambiguity, though. Matthew 16:13 has Jesus saying "who are people saying that I, the Son of Man, might be?" In short, he's aware that people have been calling him other things, but he has only ever claimed one title for his own, and prefers it. The capital letters shouldn't be there, that's posturing by the translators.
That is consistent with my recollection. Since when have most Christians sat down, read their book independently, and engaged in critical thinking about it, though? By and large they are told what verses are important, how to interpret them, etc, the main differences being across denominations. It is interesting that the roots of Protestantism may come from independence from a hierarchy deciding proper interpretations, but they've ended up doing the same. So, it doesn't surprise me that some Christians will believe the author without checking and thinking.
Indeed. The author of this book is assuming people will vaguely recall the verbiage from sermons past, and just assume that this new book knows what it's talking about, just like they assume their pastor knows what he's talking about when he bloviates about the "true meaning" of this or that passage on Sundays. People who are dispositionally apt to do their homework before believing shit someone tells them wouldn't fall into Trumpism to begin with.
Nor, indeed, into Christianity.
That depends on what you consider Christianity to be. If someone told me they were a Platonist, then elaborated by explaining that they dismiss most of Plato's writings and heavily favor empiricism over idealism, I would take their self-identification as a Platonist with a bit of a grain of salt. They might genuinely believe themselves to be Platonists, but if the slightest bit of study of Plato would disabuse them of that notion, I'm not going to take them as seriously as a I would someone who calls themselves a Platonist due to having studied (and agreed with) his principle works and ideas.
I consider both Christianity and Platonism to be what the majority of their members reveal them to be by their actions and beliefs.
Yes, thank goodness the atheist worldview has produced so many notoriously utopian societies to save us from our collective follies.
There's no such thing as "the atheist worldview", but even if there were, Tu Quoque would remain a logical fallacy.
That's certainly true.
